Author
Topic: Qualification Score Requirement (Read 1606 times)

The 175-point requirement may have excluded my continued participation in expert.I was planning to participate in some scale events this season but the prospect of not being able to qualify for the masters is a deterrent to my participation in regional qualifiers, especially when there is a scheduling conflict with pattern events.Jim Hiller

Why would you think the 175 points would be a limiting factor? Just taking some sampling from last year. Dan Sullivan, under the old scheme 2 qualified, under new 3Evergreen, old 2 new 4Gunsmoke, old 2 new 5Mint Julip old 4 new 8

Please rethink things. From the numbers it should be easier to qualify. Also, if no one makes the score cutoff then we drop back to the old method only using 33% not 30%...

In reviewing my 2009 championship scores I probably wouldn't have gotten the required 175 if I hadn't gotten one 90+flight score. The average of the other flight scores was below 80, which would have required a static score above 95, which I don't believe I've ever posted.Under the old system I could usually qualify by the second or third district qualifier due to the pre-qualification of the top finishers kicking the 30% number of contestants down to my level of competitiveness.In the past it's been more about participation than proving worthiness.Jim

It can still work out that way... If all pilots who have <175 score have already qualified, then we would be taking the top 33% of those who were under 175. So, really based on the numbers from couple years, there should be more qualifying early.

Other options, compete in advanced? or the new Pro/Am Pro (old open class) where static really does not matter and really a flying event.

Jim like what Mitch says by using how you have done it the past there would no reason that it will not be the same on the new/old way. An example is that you go to a Qualifier especially one that is later in the season and there are 10 pilots in your class. 7 of them have already qualified but the other 3 have not and all did not meet the minimum number or 2 did but 1 didn't all of those 3 would be qualified because it will default back to the 33% for situations like you have described. By how you have done in the past it sounds like you will still be able to qualify under the new rules so don't be disheartened by this you might be surprised how this all works and the benefit for all.

What you have done has brought up a flaw in the guide. What was intended and what was written were not exactly the same. I am submitting a change which will say that at a minimum 33% of a class will qualify. After talking more with Randy and Curtis that is more what was intended. Thanks for the question.. without it this oversite would not have been noticed.

Roly, I plan to attend at least a couple this season even though there are a couple date conflicts.I flew in most of the Farragut State Park (N-Idaho) qualifiers years ago and hope to be there this year. Its only about an hour drive, too close to pass up.

Oops. Just opened the web sight to verify that it was a qualifier. NW Scale lists it as a qualifier http://www.nwsam.org/events.html but Ussm doesn't. June 21-23Jim

This thread inspired me to read the section in the rules on qualifying and now I have some questions. I am a new member of the USSMA and have never competed in a scale r/c event, so this is all new to me. Perhaps a simple example would be helpful for me and possibly others to better understand how this works. Let's assume at a qualifier that there are 10 contestants for the Advanced class and that five of those contestants have already qualified, for example from a prior event. So, here are my questions:

1. It appears, based upon the rules, that the 33% rule only applies if none of the 10 contestants receives 165 points (from the rules: "If no one in any Qualifier class meets the minimum qualifying points..."). If any one of the 10 contestants receives 165 points, then the 33% rule does not apply, and the five contestants who have not yet qualified each need to receive 165 points to qualify. Is this correct?

Or, was the intent of this rule: "If no one in any Qualifier class, who has not yet otherwise qualified, meets the minimum qualifying points..."? That small change can make a big difference. The way the rule is written, the 33% rule only applies when all of the 10 competitors receive less than 165 points. Was the rule intended to mean that the 33% rule applies when all of the competitors, who have not yet qualified, five in our example, receive less than 165 points?

I have never been to a qualifier event, so I have no feel for how difficult it would be to receive the minimum score, but if it is common that at least one competitor in a class receives the minimum score, then the 33% rule may not be used very often.

2. Assuming that all of the contestants receive less than 165 points and the 33% rule goes into effect, then the number of contestants qualifying would be 33% of the entire 10 contestants (from the rules: "the top 33% of that class"), which would be 3.33 rounded up to four. So the top four of the five contestants who have not yet qualified would qualify, regardless of whether their score meets the 165 point minimum. Is this correct?

Ed, Jim and all...Here is the proposed rewrite of that section. Let me what you think.

"At a minimum 33% (round up to next whole number) of the total participants of a class will be qualified. If there are not enough pilots meeting the minimum qualifying points listed above, then use 33% of that class for the next X number of top scoring pilots to fill out the 33%. Example 1) 10 pilots in a class, none are previously qualified, 5 finished with a score above the minimum to qualify. Since, based on 33% 4 would be the minimum qualified, the 5 pilots would full fill the minimum of 4 to qualify. Example 2) 10 pilots in a class, none are previously qualified, 1 finished with a score above the minimum to qualify. The 33% would allow for 4 pilots to qualify. So the 1 pilot who scored above the minimum and the next 3 for a total of 4 qualified pilots. Example 3) 10 pilots in a class, the top 4 pilots are already qualified, then you would still qualify 4 pilots, starting with the 5th place. So 5th-8th place would qualify. We can't cover every combination out there in the guide. If you have any question, please contact Director of Administration."

This paragraph reads as if no minimum score is used or needed.The top 33% qualify regardless of score, as it was using the 30% rule.Previously qualified pilots will be included in calculating the qualifying number of pilots. The qualifying number is applied excluding those already qualified in order of placement, highest to lowest, within each class flown.

It seems to make more sense now. If a contestant achieves the stated minimum score for the class, that contestant qualifies, no matter how many other contestants have already qualified, either at that event or any other event. So, achieve the minimum score for the class, and you qualify. But no matter what, at least 33% of the contestants in a class at a qualifier who are not yet qualified will qualify, regardless of their scores or how many of the contestants might be qualified from another event. Is this correct?

Sorry this is so drawn out. Sometimes it's hard to understand rules and it's even harder to write them.

As a first timer, I look forward to participating and most of all, having fun!

Hi Ed, you are correct except one at the end seemed a bit off in your statement. This is how it works at a Qualifier. If all the contestants in a certain class are not pre-qualified then yes minimum score rule takes precedent. But no less than 33% will qualify in that class no matter what there score. Now the part that I am afraid you might be wrong on is this. If lets say 10 contestants are at a Qualifier all in the same class but 5 of them are already qualified from another Qualifier then they count still towards the 33% but it starts at pilot 6. In other words the 33% rule is for the total amount of contestants in the class not just the ones that are not qualified. This is why it is very important to go to other Qualifiers if possible it can help another contestant get to the Champs. But in all reality I really think that the 33% rule is not going to play into that much since I really think that most are going to make it under the new minimum scoring. Would be more maybe at a qualifier later in the year I would guess will just have to see. If I still did not make it clear give me a call easier on the phone I think.

Thanks for the clarification. I see that allows more people to qualify. The statement "But no matter what, at least 33% of the contestants in a class at a qualifier who are not yet qualified will qualify, regardless of their scores or how many of the contestants might be qualified from another event" will always be true then, but the actual number will be greater, since the 33% is based upon the total number of contestants in the class, including those that are already qualified. So, in the example with 10 contestants, of which five have already qualified, the 33% applies to the entire 10, rounded up, which would be four. So, four out of the five contestants will qualify.

So, as a newcomer, being in a class with a lot of contestants who have already qualified is good!